If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Agreed. Many comments can be summed up as either "I love Windoze-like interfaces, don't innovate, keep Gnome 2", or "nyah nyah, XXX is a better desktop". And then the inevitable morons ("let it die", "kill yourselves", etc etc.)

Little wonder the Gnome devs pay little attention to Phoronix surveys, don't you think? It's entirely possible that there's some intelligent feedback mixed in there, but you'd have to filter through a lot of noise to find it...

They do it all the time because they know they're good, and they know the whiners are mouth-breathing morons.

If you don't like Gnome 3, you're most likely doing something stupid. Instead of getting frustrated, try thinking about the best way to accomplish your task. You'll find that the way you used to do things in Windows and Gnome 2 were not that efficient after all.

A couple of things that i (personally) found interesting in the survey and comments.

- for those commenting how it is just the same whiners complaining as the last survey ~ while on some level i do agree with you (at least, in part) i think it is sad that you so easily write off every criticism of Gnome. While it is true some of the criticisms are invalid (in the sense that some of the criticizers, were complaining about things like (for example) gnome should have plugins - which it does aka: extensions), while others are just unrealistic (ie: Gnome won't be dropping GS for a gnome 2 desktop), complaints about minimizing/maximizing buttons (which whatever moron wrote that should realize that you can EASILY change that behavior), etc ... other comments are quite valid. For example (my comment);

Originally Posted by ninez from survery

Recently, i switched to KDE (EDIT: which didn't last long) right around the time Gnome 3.6 was released. I still had to deal with gtk3 updates breaking my desktop, even when not using Gnome - which is incredibly frustrating. As a side note - i also used to maintain gtk+ themes (both gtk2/gtk3/metacity), i eventually stopped because on every point release you guys break themes and i got sick of fixing them.

PUT MORE ENERGY INTO GTK+ OVER GNOME-SHELL.

gtk3 is important and yet it seems Gnome-Shell and other gnome components/apps get more attention that gtk does. If you compare Qt to Gtk, you can't help but notice how much better QT is - Gnome should focus on improving gtk in a variety of ways.

on both of these points Gnome should provide documentation for how to handle gtk+ updates, if you continue to break peoples desktop on every update

Iif they would actually improve gtk3 + stop breakage on theming - that would be progress. I don't recall Windows or MacOSX EVER breaking the look/feel of the desktop on an update :\ anyway, gnome should address some of this stuff - it would make their desktop much more reliable / professional / consistent - more so than removing features or reducing menus to ugly single buttons on the rightside of the window (like nautilus).

For those whom don't like GS (myself included), fine than don't use it! (i don't) but i also don't feel the need to complain every chance i get about my distaste for it ~ it's called "moving on". There are plenty of other shells for gnome 3 that are viable options, depending on one's tastes - so use one of them instead, or don't use gnome

Originally Posted by Roberto Dirksen

If you don't like Gnome 3, you're most likely doing something stupid. Instead of getting frustrated, try thinking about the best way to accomplish your task. You'll find that the way you used to do things in Windows and Gnome 2 were not that efficient after all.

....Or it could be that GS just isn't to some peoples tastes, workflows (aka not morons). You may find GS to be exceptional and set a new standard of how a desktop should be used ~ but that doesn't mean that is actually true. In both MacOSX and Cinnamon - i am FAR more productive than when using GS - and no i am not a mouse-user, but am a heavy user of shortcuts/keyboard and also of gestures (tablet) in both environments.

so instead of being so arrogant, you might want to be a little more humble and actually respect other people's ability and choices or atleast try to open your mind a little. I'm not saying GS is garbage (it obviously is not) but to insinuate that anybody whom doesn't like it is just an idiot. Says a lot more about you (in a very negative way) than it does about them.

and FYI Gnome OS isn't a replacement for an actual distro, nor is it planned to be. Calling it an OS - has caused a bit of confusion here - you may actually want to read what Gnome OS is really geared towards; https://live.gnome.org/GnomeOS/

Please STOP this madness !

It's time to forget the old gnome... it will never come back.
Perhaps in 5 or 10 years gnome-shell will be the best desktop but for today just let it alone, but I'm sure phoronix will continue to make survey every year.
Today Gnome-shell is more something for the devs ( and anyway theses devs all use apple laptop with mac osx installed really ? ), a playfield where they can experiment whatever idea they have. It's a good thing, but users need to understand it's not for everyday or production usage.
When the old functionnal paradigm of gnome2 was replaced with something more experimental they have forgotten to let a note on the window : " We're closed for renovation, please come back in several years. "

not entirely true. Yes, Gnome2 is essentially dead (unless you are one of those mate users). But much of it's functionality has been implemented in Cinnamon, so the gnome2 paradigm, largely has lived on.

Originally Posted by rafirafi

When the old functionnal paradigm of gnome2 was replaced with something more experimental they have forgotten to let a note on the window : " We're closed for renovation, please come back in several years. "

They did that already - gnome 3 was in development for several years _before_ being *officially released* ... Once it was released, the expectation / intention wasn't that it was in an experimental state, but actually was going to become the default desktop for most distro's that shipped Gnome2 ~ but obviously that didn't really work out for the Gnome-devs, since their Shell was forked, Ubuntu didn't want to use it and created Unity, etc.

We are now at Gnome 3.6 (which is NOT an 'experimental release', but instead is a 'stable release). I'm not sure where you get the idea that Gnome is an experimental DE (?) - many people have been using it for quite some time and on some distro's it is the default DE.

I'm sure it's what I call stable

Originally Posted by ninez

not entirely true. Yes, Gnome2 is essentially dead (unless you are one of those mate users). But much of it's functionality has been implemented in Cinnamon, so the gnome2 paradigm, largely has lived on.

They did that already - gnome 3 was in development for several years _before_ being *officially released* ... Once it was released, the expectation / intention wasn't that it was in an experimental state, but actually was going to become the default desktop for most distro's that shipped Gnome2 ~ but obviously that didn't really work out for the Gnome-devs, since their Shell was forked, Ubuntu didn't want to use it and created Unity, etc.

We are now at Gnome 3.6 (which is NOT an 'experimental release', but instead is a 'stable release). I'm not sure where you get the idea that Gnome is an experimental DE (?) - many people have been using it for quite some time and on some distro's it is the default DE.

I've use cinnamon for month till I switch to gnome-shell (again)
then xfce in September. I was always using the lattest version, after 3-5 days cinnamon was just killing itself as the memory leak was encountering 2G...
So I can speak of my last experience of gnome shell.
The install was ok and everything that was available was working correctly, but there was this effect when you open/switch windows which was really annoying. So I though : we're going to change that.
When you use windows, osx, other linux DE it's something you can do. With gnome-shell you can do it but you've to edit system file manually... so I just let it go.
Then there was these shinny extensions on the gnome site, I though perhaps this could help me with the transition. I tried 3, one was doing nothing(I suppose it was broke), one was uggly and one completely broke the default settings.
So it was only three months ago I don't know for you but this is not my definition of stable.

And even gnome-shell team have understood it was a little too much, they always said they were not going to maintain an outdated and gnome-shell breaking experience thing : the legacy/classic mode.
They have perfectly good justifications : moving forward, putting energy in improving their new DE, taking care of their vision first even if it was obviously meaning a massive users leakage. But when you believe in what you do you don't care the critics and they seemed pretty confident at this time.
Do you remember when extensions were introduced ? they clearly said it was not done to reintroduce gnome2 features. Do you remember when legacy mode was introduced ? they clearly said it was not something they were going to maintain but more something quickly hacked in case of hardware problems.
So if gnome-shell is something stable and usable why do they care about reintroducing legacy functionnalities now?

And don't told me they just listen their users, I remember reading on their mailing list that they can't listen because the only users speaking are thoses which are not happy and it's not something relevant.

For the rest I'm ok whith what you said, and again it's just my view. Perhaps if you are somebody who just want something working and who never change settings and don't use your computer a lot gnome-shell is perfect, but I'm inclined to thing this kind of people buy apple laptop instead (like the people you can see at every gnome conference). Oups...